- (1.) SECURITY FORCE HELD ON 30.5.1970. The Departmental Promotion Committee set up in the Ministry of Home Affairs for considering the cases of promotion of Assistant Commandants to the rank of Deputy Commandant in the BSF met on 30.5.1970 in the room of Joint Secretary (P), Ministry of Home Affairs.
(2.) THE Committee examined the recommendations of the Central Promotion Board and also scrutinised the Confidential Charactar Rolls of all the officers who were recommended for promotion and also those who had not been recommended. The total number of sanctioned posts of Deputy Commandant/Joint Assistant Directors in the Force is 102. The number of vacancies in this cadre is 52.
(3.) ACCORDING to the Promotion Rules, an Assistant Commandant with 6 years of Service is eligible for promotion as Deputy Commandant. The number of Assistant Commandants from the various sources who had become eligible for promotion is given below: (1) Dy. SPS on deputation.......... 22(2) ACs of EC -1 batch.............. 96(3) ACs of EC -2 batch..............142(4) ACs of EC -3 batch.............. 22(5) ACs of EC -4 batch.............. 34(6) ACs of EC -5 batch...............36(7) ACs of EC -6 batch...............59Total...............................4115. The process of selecting from among the Assistant Commandants for filling up post of Deputy Commandants was very difficult in view of the fact that a large number of Assistant Commandants had good records before and after their entry in the BSF. After careful scrutiny of the dossiers of the eligible officers relating to the period prior to and after their appointment to the BSF, the D.P.C. concluded that 20 officers were fit to hold the post of Deputy Commandants and therefore can be promoted. 6. In bringing the names on the select list, we have tried to select the best officers. Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes: 7. Only one officer Shri P. Gangte, a Scheduled Tribe Dy. SP from Manipur, came in the Zone of promotion. We have recommended his name for being brought on the Select List. 8. We recommend that the following names may be brought on the Select List of Assistant Commandants for promotion as Deputy Commandant/Joint Assistant Director - - 1. Shri Gandharb Singh2. Shri P. Gangte3. Shri Y.C. Dixit4. Shri P.U. Govindankutty Nair5. Shri Beyant Singh6. Shri S.S. Sekhon7. Shri Surindur Singh8. Shri Jagdev Singh9. Shri Ravinder Singh Mehta10. Shri Roop Ram Jat11. Shri A.K. Sarbadhikari12. Shri R.S. Jasrotia13. Shri B.N. Bhattacharjee14. Shri B.S. Garcha15. Shri N.S. Yadav16. Shri Narpat Singh17. Shri P. Pillai18. Shri G.C. Pant19. Shri G.P. Bhatnagar20. Shri Avtar Singh Bedi.Sd - Sd -Director General, BSF (B. Venkataraman)Joint Secretary (P), MHA.'On the basis of the aforesaid D.P.C. the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were promoted as Dy. Commandants by the order dated 7th September, 1970. The proceedings of the D.P.C. for the year 1971 as were produced for the perusal of the Court by the counsel for the respondents are reproduced as under: 'PROCEEDINGS OF THE DPC FOR PROMOTION OF ASSISTANT COMMANDANTS TO THE RANK OF DEPUTY COMMANDANT IN THE BSF HELD ON 11.7.1971.The DPC set up in the Ministry of Home Affairs for considering cases for promotion of Assistant Commandants to the rank of Deputy Commandant in the BSF on 11.7.1971. 2. According to the Promotion Rules, an. Assistant Commandant with 6 years service is eligible for promotion as a Deputy Commandant. 3. The number of Assistant Commandants eligible for promotion is given below: - Dy SP on deputation = 10AC (Ex -ECO) = 481The total number of sanctioned posts of Deputy Commandant/Joint Asstt. Director is 181. The number of vacancies is 113. 4. The DPC carefully went through the ACRs of the officers. By and large, the officers had a good record because it was only the pick of the Ex -ECOs i.e. who had a high average record in the Army and who did well during interview, who had been appointed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF. It was not an easy problem to distinguish between the performance of the officers for selecting them for promotion. The DPC felt that nature of responsibility that would have to be undertaken by the Deputy Commandant, only officers having an above average record should be promoted. 5. The sudden intake of a large number of Ex -ECOs and Assistant Commandants having the same seniority and having about the same age group has posed a difficult cadre management problem. It has, therefore, been decided that all the vacancies of the Deputy Commandants should not be filled up in one lot although there are sufficient number of officers in the promotion zone available. The DG BSF under the powers delegated to him would try Assistant Commandants who are also above average and who are lower down in the seniority list, by giving them charge of the duties of Deputy Commandants, in addition to their own duties as Assistant Commandants. This would enable a better judgment and assessment of their work for purposes of regular promotion as also stagger promotions for better cadre management in higher ranks. 6. The promotions in the BSF from the rank of Assistant Commandants, a Class I post to the rank of Deputy Commandant, another Class I post, are made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness. 7. The rules regarding reservation for SC/ST for promotions on the basis of seniority subject to fitness are reproduced below: (C) Promotions on the basis of seniority subject to fitness: There is no reservation for SC and ST in appointments made by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness, but cases involving supersession of SC and ST officers in Class I and Class II appointments should be subjected for prior approval to the Minister or Dy. Minister concerned. Cases involving supersession of SC and ST officers in Class III and IV appointments should be reported within a month to the Minister or Dy. Minister concerned for information. 8. It will thus be seen that there is no reservation for SC/ST in appointments made by promotion the rank of Dy Commandants; however, cases involving supersession of SC/ST officers are to be submitted for prior approval to the Minister. 9. There is no SC/ST candidate within the zone of promotion. 10. There are two Muslim candidates who are in the promotion zone. Shri S.H. Hussain at S.No. 78 has not been recommended by the DPC for promotion because of indifferent record. The other candidate Shri S.H. Khan at S. No. 91 has been recommended for promotion as Dy. Commandant. 11. We recommend that the following names may be brought on the Select List of ACs for promotion as Dy. Commandant: 1. Shri R.S. Rathore2. Shri S.P. Gorowara3. Shri O.P. Rana4. Shri V.P. Singh5. Shri Sher Singh6. Shri Bharat Bhushan7. Shri Bakshish Singh8. Shri A. Allur9. Shri B.M. Chengappa10. Shri V.S. Sirohi11. Shri K.S. Vohra12. Shri M.K. Soni13. Shri U.C. Chhabra14. Shri S.P. Sawhney15. Shri B.N. Chaturvedi16. Shri A.S. Mangat17. Shri S.H. Khan18. Shri Ghanshyam Singh19. Shri G.D. Singh20. Shri U. S. Rawat21. Shri R.M. Das22. Shri Raghubir Singh23. Shri Daljit Singh24. Shri Sulckhan Singh25. Shri D.D. Swami26. Shri Joginder Singh27. Shri D.R. Yadav28. Shri S.P. Kewal29. Shri Ashok Kumar30. Shri PPS SawhneySd - Sd -(K.F. Rustamji) (B. Venkataraman)DG BSF JS (P) MHA'On the basis of these recommendations the respondent Nos. 13 to 38 were promoted as Dy. Commandants by the order dated 19th August, 1971. These orders dated 7th September, 1970 and 19th August, 1971 in so far as they accord promotion to the petitioner's juniors and deny the promotion on the post of Dy. Commandant to the petitioner are under challange before me and it has to be considered as to whether the petitioner's candidature has received a fair consideration in confirmity with the right of equality of opportunity in the matters relating to employment as provided in Article 16 of the Constitution of India or not. In view of the DPC proceedings as also in view of the comparative chart which has been placed on record by the counsel for the respondents, the controversy is now confined to the question as to whether the petitioner was rightly superseded in a selection based on merit -cum -seniority for the purpose of promotion to the post of Dy. Commandant?. The charts which have been produced before me contain the remarks in the ACRs for the years beyond 1966 i.e. for the year 1967 -68, 1968 -69, 1969 -70 and 1970 -71 and the same are reproduced as under:COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF SYNOPSIS OF BSF OFFICERS OF THE RANK OF ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FEATURING IN THE LIST OF RESPONDENTS 3 TO 12 OF W.P. NO. 713/79 CONSIDERED/RECOMMENDED BY A DPC DURING MAY, 1970 FOR THEIR EMPANEL -MENT/PROMOTION TO THE RANK OF DEPUTY COMMANDANT IN BSF EXCLUSIVE OF ARMY SERVICE FROM 1964 TO 1966 (ARMY CR DOSSIER HAVING BEEN DESTROYED).Sr. NAME ACR GRADING FOR THE YEARNO. 1967 -68 1968 -69 1969 -701 A.K. SARBADHIKARI AA AA ON COURSEEC - 510772 R.S. JASROTIA A AA AAEC -507653 B.N. BHATTACHARYA AA AA AAEC -514984. B.S.GARCHA AA AA AAEC -509045. N.S. YADAV AA AA AAEC -510966. NARPAT SINGH AA AA AAEC -506107. P. PILLAI AA AA AAEC -507878. G.C. PANT AA AA AAEC -506169. G.P. BHATNAGAR A AA AAEC -5142410. A.S.BEDI AA A AAEC -50791PETITIONERS.S.KOTHIYAL AA AA AAEC -50754COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF SYNOPSIS OF BSF OFFICERS OF THE RANK OF ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FEATURING IN THE LIST OF RESPONDENTS 13 TO 38 WP NO. 713/79 CONSIDERED/RECOMMENDED BY A DPC DURING JULY 1971 FOR THEIR EMPANELMENT/PROMOTION TO THE RANK OF DEPUTY COMMANDANT IN BSF EXCLUSIVE OF ARMY SERVICE FOR THE YEAR 1965 AND 1966 (ARMY CR DOSSIERS HAVING BEEN DESTROYED)Sr. Name AGE GRADING FOR THE YEARNo 1967 -68 1968 -69 1969 -70 1970 -711. V.P. SINGH AA AA AA AAEC -507842. SHER SINGH AA AA AA AA AAEC -51318 f3. BHARAT BHUSHAN AA AA AA AAEC -505174 BAKSHISH SINGH AA AA AA AA AAEC -506465. A.S. ALUR O AA AA OEC -508116. R.M. CHENGAPPA AA AA AA AAEC -508167. V.S.SIROHI AA AA AA AAEC -506528. K.S. VOHRA AA AA AA AAEC -506699. M.K. SONI AA AA AA AAEC -5160310. U.C. CHABRA AA AA AA AAEC -506611. S.P.SAWHNEY A AA O OEC -5067412. B.N. CHATURBEDI AA AA AA AAEC -5067813. A.S. MANGAT AA AA AA AAEC -5055114. S.P. GORWARA AA A A AAEC -1825615. GHANSHYAM SINGH O O O AAEC -5156816. G.D.SINGH AA AA AA AAEC 5160517. S.S.RAWAT AA AA AA AAEG -5164618. R.M. DAS AA AA AA AAEC -5173919 RAGHUBIR SINGH AA AA AA AAEC -5074920. DALJIT SINGH AA AA AA OAEC -5164621. SULAKHAN SINGH O AA O AEC -51739(PP&FSM; FOR G -68)22. D.D.SWAMI AA AA AA AAEC -5174923. D.R. YADAV AA AA AA AAEC -5178124. S.P.KEWAL AA AA AA AAEC -5189925. ASHOK KUMAR AA AA O OEC -5216026. P.P.S.SAHNI AA A O AAEC -52496PETITIONERS.S.KOTHIYAL AA AA AA AAEC -50754 8. Thus the only record which has been made available before the Court is for the period for which the officers had served in the BSF and the record with regard to the period of their service before joining the BSF i.e. in the Army, the submission has been made that this record has been destroyed by the Army Authorities in the year 1977 and 1982, although, no specific dates have been given as to on what dates the record was destroyed in the year 1977 and what record was destroyed in the year 1982. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the objective material for the period for which the officers had rendered service in the Army prior to joining the BSF not available before the court on the basis of which it could be ascertained as to how the departmental promotion committee had assessed the fitness or otherwise for promotion not the minutes of the DPC as have been quoted hereinabove go to disclose the reasons for the supersession of the petitioner and thus the only material with which this Court has to consider the matter are the ACRs for the year 1967 -1971 in the form of the charts produced on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2. A bare perusal of these charts would show that for the Years 1967 -68, 1968 -69 and 1969 -70, the petitioner was assessed as 'Above Average officer' and this was only the part of the material which was there before the DPC at the time when the DPC met on 30th May, 1970 on the basis of which the order dated 17th August, 1970 was passed and the petitioner was superseded. On the other hand it is found that by this very DPC the officers who had been assessed to be 'Average'only', namely R.S. Jasrotia (respondent No.4 herein) was assessed as an, 'Average officer' in the Year 1967 -68, Shri G.P. Bhatanagar (Res. No. 11) was assessed as an 'Average officer' in the Year 1967 -68, Shri A.S. Bedi (respondent No.12) was assessed to be an 'Average officer' in the Year 1968 -69. In one case i.e. of Shri A.K. Sarbadhikari (respondent No.3) the A.C.R. for the Year 1969 -70 was not available as it is mentioned to be 'On course'. Thus I find that so far as the ACRs for the period for which the petitioner has served in the BSF his record is a foot higher in comparsion to the above named three officers who had atleast one average out of the three remarks for three consequitive Years. Similarly, the DPC which met on 11th July, 1971 took into consideration the remarks for the Years 1967 -1971 and even for the Year 1970 -71 i.e. in the forth Year the petitioner had earned the 'Above Average' remarks. Thus for four consequtive years right from 1967 -68 to 1970 -71 the petitioner has earned 'Above Average' remarks which goes to show that the petitioner has consistently above average service record which definitely shows a higher merit in comparison to those who have earned only average ACR and even the DPC which met in the year 1971 the candidates viz., Shri S.P. Sawhney had earned on avearge ACR in the year 1967 -68 though in the year 1969 -70 and 1970 -71 he has earned outstanding remarks. In the case of one Shri S.P. Gorwara (respondent No.26) there is no ACR for the year 1967 -68 and in the case of Sulakhan Singh (respondent No.33), he has earmed only average ACR for the year 1970 -71 although in the year 1967 -68 and 1969 -70 he has earned outstanding remarks. The overall picture that embrges is that so far as the record for the period the officers had served in the BSF is concerned the officers junior to the petitioner, who had atleast one average ACR have been selected and the officers who had above average remarks for 3 and 4 years like that of the petitioner have also been selected but the petitioner although had consistently average remarks for all the 3 years and for the forth year i.e. 1970 -71 respectively has been superseded. The counsel for the respondents Shri P.P. Chaudhary has submitted that the DPCs for the year 1970 and 1971 have also taken in to consideration the record of service pertaining to the period when the officers had served in the Army and may be that the petitioner's record for the, period he served in the Army was inferior vis -a - vis the other officers who have been selected by the DPCs in the years 1970 and 1971 and, therefore, on the consideration of 6 years service record, the DPC did not find the petitioner to be suitable for promotion and it may be on account of the inferior quality of service record while he was in Army and the same thing may not be obtaining in the case of other junior officers who have been selected. Once it is admitted before this Court that the promotions in - this case were based on merit -cum -seniority and yet it is borned out from the record that the candidates having average remarks have been selected, may be for one year, this ipso facto goes to show that the various candidates including the petitioner have not received a fair consideration at the hands of the DPC and the uniformity has not been followed. It is made out by the record produced by the respondent themeslves that even when the petitioner was in the Army, there was nothing adverse to him. Firstly because no adverse communication was sent to the petitioner as has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Even if it is presumed that in the year 1966 the petitioner had average remark that would also be a case of average remark for one year only and, therefore, if other officers having one average, remark were selected, the petitioner too should have been selected on the same principle. It is the case of the respondents themselves that so far as the Army Services are concerned, the record which was taken into consideration was for the year 1964 -65 and 1965 -66. Admittedly the petitioner was promoted from the post of IInd Lieutenant to the rank of Captain in the year 1966, and, therefore, there cannot be anything against the petitioner upto 1966 even in the Army Service and even if the field posting which was given to the petitioner on the next higher post of Major is not taken to be a promotion, at least, this much can be inferred that there was nothing against the petitioner. Had there been anything against the petitioner he would not have been given a posting on the next higher post even in the Field Services. ;